Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

How Pi Pizza Enraged Gun Rights Activists

Lee Ellis talks to us about why he banned guns from Pi Pizza, and what happened when gun rights activists went after him on the Internet.

By Comments

Photo by Julie Soefer

After years as one of Houston’s most popular food trucks, Pi Pizza chef Anthony Calleo partnered with restaurateur Lee Ellis and opened a brick-and-mortar location on trendy Heights Boulevard last month. The pie trade was swell for the first couple of weeks. Rave online reviews flowed in for the restaurant’s mac n’ cheese ball appetizers, the venison-topped Outdoorsman pie, its menu of craft beers, wine, and cocktails, and liquor-tinged desserts from Lee’s Creamery, one of Ellis’s other Cherry Pie Hospitality restaurants.

It had been a long time coming for Calleo, who recently told the Houston Chronicle he had spent eighteen months tinkering with his pizza dough recipe before he ever dared open his food truck, which has been parked in front of several of the city’s hippest bars and nightspots for the past four years.

And then came the gun ruckus. A Facebook user by the name of Kyle Kelly noticed that Ellis had placed a sign in the window banning firearms from the premises, and Kelly unloaded online with a one-star review of the pizzeria. Kelly’s review, which has since been taken down, stated that he would not (and did not) spend a penny in a restaurant that barred him from bringing in a gun with him.

“He wrote a one-star review and it was nothing about the pizza,” Ellis tells Texas Monthly. “He never even stepped over the threshold.” Ellis deemed that unfair, and in one of his responses—written under the Pi Pizza Facebook account—he suggested that Kelly could “FO” if he didn’t like the policy. In another post, Ellis called Kelly an “ignorant idiot.” “I told him to FO,” Ellis says. “I could have said f— off but I didn’t. I told him he could interpret it however he wanted to.”

Kelly took a screenshot of the exchange and hustled it over to the message boards at Texas3006.com, and within hours gun enthusiasts from across Texas and America were one-starring Pi Pizza on Yelp, Google and Facebook.

The pizzeria’s Facebook page had close to a thousand one-star reviews, many, if not most, written by people who never so much as tasted a single crust of Pi Pizza. Meanwhile, Calleo asked for the support of Pi lovers, and within twenty-four hours the restaurant had garnered 1,300 five-star reviews. (The review section of the Facebook page has since been disabled, and the Yelp page is in “Active cleanup alert” status. Google has told Ellis that unless the review has the word “gun” in it, the review will stay up.)

The negative reviews rose to truly epic, and utterly false, heights. Reviewers claimed that servers had track marks on their arms. The clientele was reported to consist largely of visibly affiliated gang members. Someone claimed that Calleo dripped snot onto a pizza, and his private information was posted online. Someone even made the claim that it was the likes of Pi Pizza who “allowed” the mass shooting that occurred about ten miles across Houston last week to occur.

Another reviewer claimed that his car had been broken into and his gun stolen while he was in the restaurant. “I Googled the guy, and I don’t think he even lives in Texas,” Ellis says. “They just went really over the top.”

One gun advocate took the time to craft an apology letter for Ellis to cut, paste and endorse. Needless to say, Ellis didn’t take him up on the offer. “I’m not apologizing for anything. I’m not the one who did anything wrong.”

Ellis says he decided to take down the Facebook review section not because Pi’s rating might sink, but because he didn’t want his page to be used as a platform for gun enthusiasts. “I didn’t want to help their cause,” he says. “It wasn’t hurting us. I don’t want to promote their cause, because I don’t think they have a cause.”

Ellis, the brother of a long-time cop, says he has no issue with guns per se, but he doesn’t think they belong in places where liquor is sold, such as Pi Pizza. “If I have to post a sign now to say that, well, that’s why the sign is up,” he says, then noting that his other businesses Lee’s Petite Sweets and Lee’s Chicken and Donuts don’t have signs up because they don’t offer liquor.

Legal action—a lawsuit for tortious interference—could be in the cards, Ellis says. “The issue is not about guns. We don’t want them in our building because we serve liquor. It’s all about the false reviews. My attorney tells me we absolutely have a case.”

Meanwhile, Calleo and Ellis are working up an “FO Pizza” recipe, a cheeseburger pizza that is on the menu permanently, the proceeds of which will be donated police and fire department charity the 100 Club.

Related Content

  • José

    It’s a sad day when gun nut lunacy makes pizza pie political.

    • spencer60

      It’s a sad day when gun control nuts make EVERYTHING political.

      • getoffmylawn

        Actually, you have it backwards. WHO started the Facebook attack? Gun nuts.

        • spencer60

          So a bad review over a policy to discriminate against legal gun owners is an ‘attack’. huh?

          • getoffmylawn

            You’re ignoring the facts. If someone doesn’t like an owner exercising his LEGAL right to ban guns, its fine to disagree. It’s not fine to defame, lie, and personally attacked the owner. It was not simple disagreement and you know it. It was defamation trying to kill a good business. That unAmerican, and those guilty should be exposed and sued to keep it from happening again.

          • spencer60

            SInce (as the article states) the review page is down now, there’s no way to tell if any reviews ‘crossed the line’ into slander.

            But from experience on these kinds of things (and this comments thread will back me up), it’s the gun control side that starts name-calling and jumping up and down threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue.

            Most pro-rights folks try and avoid that type of behavior and proceed rationally. After all, we have the facts on our side, so there’s no real need to should and foam at the mouth.

            From what I can see…

            The owners decided to make their place ‘gun free’.
            A patron saw that and gave them a poor review because of it.
            The owners responded harshly to the review.
            Other reviewers responded to the owners push-back and a flame war started.
            The owners took down the review page.

            Again, is there was anything legally actionable, it’s the owner’s right to prosecute. Since they didn’t it’s pretty likely that there was nothing there to prosecute.

            At this point you are simply making up stories and trying to say it is fact, which it most certainly isn’t.

          • getoffmylawn

            Actually, they are considering legal action. They can’t “prosecute” but they can certainly sue, and I hope they do to take these bullies down a notch or two.

          • spencer60

            In a civil action the complainant is the ‘prosecutor’.

            I’m pretty sure that they will find (once they talk to a lawyer) that they have no case, but again, if they want to give it a shot it’s their right to do so…

          • getoffmylawn

            No, in civil action, the complaint at is the plaintiff.

          • spencer60

            Yes, they are the plaintiff, but they are taking the role of a ‘prosecutor’ would in a criminal matter by filing the charges against the defendant.

          • getoffmylawn

            Spoken with the confidence of one who has no clue what he’s talking about.

          • David Lally

            “Most pro-rights folks try and avoid that type of behavior and proceed rationally. After all, we have the facts on our side, so there’s no real need to shout and foam at the mouth.”

            I haven’;t laughed so hard in ages. Are you seeking help for your delusions?

          • spencer60

            Just check out this comment string…

          • valkyrie17

            Incorrect. A NON-patron saw that and decided to post a one star review of a place he had never eaten in because his feelings were hurt.

          • spencer60

            No, Kelly placed that review because the restaurant was legally barring him from even entering.

          • FlameCCT

            Remind me again of the bakery in OR, the photographer in NM, or the florist in WA. Y’all supported that defamation, lies, and personal attacks on people.

        • Bear Naff

          Actually, from the story above you would be wrong. The first serious, and preventable, breach of civility was by Mr. Ellis. When you consider that the policy regarding weapons was entirely due to the presence of alcohol at this restaurant, something that’s fairly easy to defend even among “gun nuts”, it was pretty inexcusable.

          He could have offered the classic non-apology of “I’m sorry you feel this way” and then gone on to point out that the policy was due to alcohol at this one (of THREE) Ellis restaurants rather than a general rule. That _might_ have seen a retraction of the 1-star review, and almost certainly would have prevented any escalation beyond it. Instead, he chose to get into a spat with the reviewer and was upset when he learned that his own behavior had given self-chosen opponent had more social clout than he expected.

          Mr. Ellis’s brother is a cop, and cops have a saying he probably knows. “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

          • Mary Shew

            If people can ban people from their businesses because of their lifestyle then businesses can ban ignorant gun toting people from their businesses. Turn about is fair play. In your face gun toters are disgusting. Hey Bubba you want to go get lunch be sure to carry your AK
            cause we’re so proud our state representatives have okayed this. All this gun legislation should be up to voters and not a few legislators.

          • Bear Naff

            What you have just said has nothing at all to do with the discussion. Congratulations.

  • Asher B. Garber

    Macho gun men claim to be cool under pressure (I mean, they can take out a school shooter from 100 yards away, if it wasn’t for those gun free zones!) but then lose their patooties over pizza pie.

    And somehow the Gubmint is supposed to be afraid of these people and their arsenals.

    • spencer60

      All this because a couple of hipster pizza dudes got some bad reviews for making their restaurant a ‘gun free zone’?

      • valkyrie17

        What is your objection to a restaurant owner making HIS place of business gun-free? Should he not have the right to decide that? A gun is not part of you. You have the option to leave it at home. Getting a pizza is not a high-risk endeavour.

        • spencer60

          Depends on where the pizza joint is… Pretty much everywhere in HOU is a high-risk endeavor.

          • Asher B. Garber

            You sound like a very scared man. Luckily, I’m not at all like you, so everything you say doesn’t quite connect with me. Isn’t that funny?

  • biff

    Grown people acting like petulant children because they can’t bring their security blankets with them.

    • spencer60

      Yeah, they should have just calmly replied to the first review instead of throwing a hissy fit.

      • valkyrie17

        Or they could have simply gone elsewhere. It’s not like the gun is a part of their body. It’s a tool. They do not need to drag it everywhere.

        • spencer60

          There’s isn’t much point in carrying a self-defense tool if you constantly leave it at home.

          It’s like carrying a fire extinguisher in your car only when you think it might catch fire.

          • Asher B. Garber

            Living life like a scared little man. That’s what you sound like, Spencer.

            I don’t need a gun to live my life. I’m okay with what might happen because of that. Call it being at peace with myself. As opposed to your rule of thumb, which is that once you leave the confines of your home, you’re generally forked.

            I believe a junior high school retort is perfect for you. Too bad, so sad.

  • BriteBlonde1

    Sounds to me like the gun crazies would not pass a background check for mental competence to own their guns….

    • Nonsequiteuse

      It is true that several of the most vocal advocates for open carry without any licensure, background checks, etc. are men who, under the current law, would not qualify because of their criminal records. Without doing away with the laws altogether, they can’t carry.

      • spencer60

        Any other ‘facts’ you want to make up?

        Hate to tell you but TX has some of the strictest licensing laws in the US, and they are one of only a few states where a ‘no guns’ sign has the force of law.

        People who carry a gun even though they are legally barred from doing so are called ‘criminals’, not ‘gun owners’.

        People with legal guns are far, far less likely to commit a crime than non-gun owners, and even than police or military personnel.

        Even states with ‘Constitutional Carry’, where no permit is required, still stipulate that you have to be a law abiding person, and not be disqualified from owning a firearm.

        There is NO place in the US where violent felons, drug abusers, and others on the Prohibited Persons list can legally carry, or even touch a gun.

        It might be useful to learn a little about the topic before commenting on it.

        • Nonsequiteuse

          I am not making anything up. I’m speaking about specific people in Texas, though I won’t name them because I don’t want to imply that people should look them up or target them in any way. Several of the most active guns-everywhere-for-everyone advocates in Texas who are very public with their activism have criminal backgrounds that would disqualify them from obtaining a permit.

          I wasn’t making a sweeping point about all gun owners.

          • spencer60

            If they are publicly agitating about ‘guns for everyone’ then they must be public figures, and there is no harm in saying who you are talking about.

            I will repeat the fact that it is illegal for a prohibited person to even touch, let alone carry a firearm in every single state.

          • getoffmylawn

            Yeah, and that doesn’t mean a dam thing without enforcement mechanisms AND the funding to do that. Republicans have been starving the ATF for decades to serve the will of the NRA.

    • spencer60

      Yet us ‘gun crazies’ have to pass an extensive background check by the FBI (at a minimum) every time we purchase a gun.

      Think you could pass one?

      • getoffmylawn

        False. I can jump on several websites right now and buy a gun in a private sale no questions asked. Stop lying.

        • spencer60

          Sure, you can buy a firearm from another law abiding person. That’s about 8-10% of total firearms sales (check your facts before you spout off that provably incorrect 40% number), and these sales are almost exclusively between friends and relatives.

          Also, any sales that cross state lines need to go through a licensed dealer no matter what (a little fact you ‘forgot’ to mention).

          The Dept of Justice tells ud that less than 1% (.08% if I remember) of criminals were able to get a firearm at a ‘gun show or flea market’.

          Last year the Univ. of Chicago published a study showing that criminals don’t get guns through private transfers at all, simply because they could too easily be sting operations.

          The reality is that about 50% of illegal guns are stolen, while the rest are bought by criminals using ‘straw buyers’ who can pass a background check.

          Both are felony crimes, but instead of pushing for more resources allocated here, the gun control lobby advocates for doing background checks on private transfers, which literally NEVER turn up criminals buying guns.

          We convict fewer than 100 people a year for ‘straw purchases’ in the US every year.

          If we weren’t wasting resources on wild-goose chases, maybe we could spend them convincing the friends and families of criminals that it’s too dangerous to buy their criminal a gun.

          • getoffmylawn

            Again, spoken with the confidence of one who has no idea what he’s talking about. Gun nuts like to talk about “law abiding” people buying and selling guns; they leave out one important fact: there’s no enforcement mechanism. You can’t “knowingly” sell a gun to a criminal. If you don’t ask, you don’t know. It’s a stupid argument.

            Straw purchases are certainly a problem, but a huge number of legal guns go into illegal trafficking through private sales, many of which are gun shows or on the street. You also make the false assertion that “no criminal will have a background check”. Well, that’s sort of the point, isn’t it? Laws are designed for criminals to stupidly violate – laws are designed to choke off supply. But, normal people already know that.

          • spencer60

            The proof is in the pudding.

            The amount of firearms criminals get from private sales is vanishingly small. Even the US Dept of Justice had to admit that fact.

            Studies into private sales show that they are almost always between people who know each other well.

            In the case of classified sales, the Univ. of Chicago showed last year that criminals avoid these like the plague, simply because they can LE stings (and often are), and because they know that the seller would likely cooperate with police if the gun is used in a crime.

            This study found that criminals overwhelmingly bought firearms from other criminals. People they could trust not to be cops, and who would have no incentive to turn them over to the cops.

            The rest of your argument not only makes little sense, but is factually wrong.

            Again, the DoJ tells us that well over 90% of ‘illegal’ guns are either stolen or purchased by straw buyers who know the person they are buying the gun for is prohibited from having a gun.

            Almost no guns go into the black market through private sales, according to every bit of data we have. That’s one reason the exemption for private sales was written into the law back in 1994.

            Even then it was obvious that law-abiding people wouldn’t knowingly sell a criminal a gun.

          • getoffmylawn

            You keep saying that, but it is false. The DOJ has admitted nothing to that effect. And to declare such defies common sense. The DOJ says that FORTY PERCENT of crime guns come from “illegal sources”. Those sources include private sales.

          • spencer60

            ATF study actually… but they are under the DoJ.

            Just to make you happy, here’s a quote from your favorite source… The Trace.

            “These illegal purchases happen at an alarming rate: According to ATF data from 2000, straw purchasers provided the second largest share illegally trafficked guns. But as many states have found, straw purchasers are rarely charged at the federal level.”

            And from Bloomberg’s “Mayors against…” site.

            “The ATF examined gun-trafficking investigations from July 1996 to December 1998 and found that 46 percent of trafficking investigations during this period involved straw purchasers.”

            Both kind of old data, but there’s nothing recent to show any changes.

          • FlameCCT

            Not to mention that most people making private sales usually record the sale info. Personally I ask for a photo ID and take a picture to go with my sales receipt which includes the firearm registration number and description whether buying or selling a firearm.

            It is amazing how Progressives like getoffmylawn project their own actions onto others.

  • cwize

    I’m all for anyone “voting with their wallet” (but man, they are missing out on some great pizza!), but these jerks went too far. This is the same petulance that has people calling for the firing of anyone who makes a mistake, or says/does something disagreeable in the mind of the “victim.” I am a CHL holder but I can respect the wishes of private property owners. Everyone seems to just have to be outraged about SOMETHING. You know what fixes that? Pizza.

    • spencer60

      They went ‘too far’ by posting their opinions, in the form of reviews, on Facebook?

      Really? That’s ‘too far’?


      • toydrum

        A restaurant review is, by its nature, supposed to be about the restaurant — its food, its service, its cleanliness. The bulk of the problem reviews were NOT restaurant reviews, they were whining about a business owner making a decision about his own property. They also contained libel, which is not protected speech. No matter how many times you try to dress it up with lipstick, that pig is still a pig.

      • valkyrie17

        You cannot give a legitimate review of a restaurant you have never eaten in.

        • spencer60

          Fair enough…

          Although I would say that if you can’t eat there because they won’t allow you in the door (in Texas ‘no guns’ signs have the force of law) you are limited on the things you can review.

          So long as you are clear and honest, that would be something OK to review in and of itself.

  • Charles Fender

    FO is a rude and childish response. Consider me unimpressed.

    • citizen kane

      as a license holder (CHL, Personal Protection Officer, Commissioned security), also expert and marksman ribbons U.S. military, I don’t feel intimidated or ‘unimpressed’ OR impressed either. I have a bit more security in myself than to have those responses.

      • FlameCCT

        As a CCP holder and SpecOps veteran, as well as business/management analysis among other “qualifications”; I too am unimpressed by a business owner responding to the initial review with FO instead of stating simply that it was because they sold alcohol while his other establishments did not and allowed firearms. This reflects poorly on the business owner and turned into a PR disaster from which he is trying to recover by blaming others.

    • Charlie3

      I’ll alert the media of your position.

  • J Carr

    I’m a CHL ADVOCATE, but if a business doesn’t want me to carry there then that’s their right! It’s their business. The open carry loonies are ruining it for the rest of us. Besides just that more pizza for others.

    • spencer60

      That is their right as private property owners.

      The right of everyone else to disagree with that decision and express their opinion about it is something called the First Amendment, and that’s what the owners were whining about.

      • getoffmylawn

        Libel is not “disagreement”. It’s defamation. If I were Ellis I would go after every single one, name them publicly and sue the crap out of them. Maybe then gun inputs might think twice before attacking someone with lies and threats.

        • spencer60

          No, Libel is a knowingly false statement meant to damage someones reputation or livelihood.

          A 1-star review on a restaurant review is not libel, it’s that person’s opinion.

          If they say that they saw roaches in the kitchen when they didn’t, that would be libel.

          • getoffmylawn

            And that’s exactly what happened. They knowingly lied. People from different states gave one star reviews. They even threatened the owners with violence. You can’t deny that gun nuts gang up to do this to people who don’t allow guns. It’s like saying that it never rains in Houston. Your argument is stupid on the face.

          • spencer60

            I’m not the one calling people with different opinions ‘violent’ and ‘nuts’…

          • getoffmylawn

            You are lying as to the facts, claiming that defamation is simply “opinion”. That is wrong.

          • spencer60

            Unlike your false claim that I am lying (which would actually be defamation of character to use the correct legal term), it would be pretty hard to convince a judge that a published review of a publicly accessible venue is defamation.

          • getoffmylawn

            Truth is a defense. You’re lying, so my statement is true.

          • spencer60

            You do realize that constantly calling people a liar without offering proof of your own doesn’t help your case that us ‘gun nuts’ as you call us are the irrational ones in this debate…

          • getoffmylawn

            LOL. Virtually every word you’ve typed is false, distorted, or gun lobby talking points. You’ve tut tutted every single factual argument I’ve made, even stupidly asserting that pouring gasoline on a fire will put it out. That denies the principle of gravity and thermodynamics. Talking with you is like talking to a Trump supporter – oh, wait…

  • wessexmom

    Thrilled to learn about this new place! I like their policy as well as their attitude and I plan to give their food a try this weekend!

    • spencer60

      It’s your right.

  • Bryan

    If you’re gonna be a dick, you reap what you sow. I guess being professional is over Mr. Ellis’s head.

    • KublaConn

      Take a long hard look in that mirror you’re holding up, Bryan.

    • Charlie3

      You need to revisit the definition of professional.

    • spencer60

      Telling a potential customer to f-o in a public forum is hardly professional.

  • getoffmylawn

    This is the typical tactic by gun nuts. They’re not for “freedom” or “liberty” at all. They’re nothing but bullies and criminals. Publishing the private information of those with whom they disagree is exactly how Open Carry Texas became infamous when this stupid movement started a couple of years ago. The backlash from normal people was so severe that they then changed tactics, trying to be “kinder and gentler”, but their membership is having none of it. Ellis should sue the crap out of them for the well documented libel they perpetrated.

    • spencer60

      Wow, stereotype much?

      FIrst of all, mentioning in a business’s review a critical fact like it being a gun free zone (which in TX has the force of law) is not libel, or even unreasonable.

      Secondly, in study after study, people with carry permits (required in TX) are shown to be less likely to commit any kind of violent crime than any group, including policemen, who I’m assuming can take their guns into the pizza shop anytime they want.

      • getoffmylawn

        Saying the wait staff are drug addicts and the food is rancid (when not true) is libel. Giving a one star review for food and service when you’ve never been there is libel. You can quote all the NRA statistics you want, but throughout the world, more guns equal more death everywhere, all the time, every time. The fact you don’t like those harsh facts doesn’t change them.

        • spencer60

          Yet here in the US we have ‘more guns’ than ever before in US history, yet our violent crime rate (including ‘gun crimes’) is down 20-50%.

          You say more guns = more death, yet murders with guns are all down by 50%.

          Suicides with guns are down as well. Even firearms accidents are at their lowest levels since records started being kept.

          As for the comments about the food and staff… how do you know they AREN’T valid? Those sounds pretty much like the bad reviews every restaurant has to expect occasionally.

          • getoffmylawn

            Yet the homicide rate in the US is still over 300% higher than other developed countries. Care to explain why gun laws work all over the planet, but somehow magically won’t in the US? Can you also explain why the states with the loosest gun laws have the highest homicide rates? You might want to educate yourself before commenting further and showing more ignorance.

          • spencer60

            Homicide rates are tied almost directly to population density, income disparity and drugs.

            And since only about 50% of homicides are committed with a firearm, even your stat shows that we would have a rate 150% higher than the rest of the world even if there were no such thing as guns.

            Basic common sense shows that while murders may involve guns, they are not caused by them, as the gun control lobby tries (and fails) to argue.

            You talk about ‘gun laws’ working… yet the cities in the US with the highest homicide rates almost universally have the more repressive gun control laws.

            The gun control lobby uses the nonsense statistics of ‘gun deaths’ and ‘gun crimes’ to make people think that the US is dangerous.

            That make no more sense than saying that the US is ‘safe’ because we have the world’s lowest rate of ‘Cricket Bat Death’.

            Yet when you look at valid statistics like actual violent crime rates in other countries, especially those with repressive gun control laws, you find the US is at least middling-safe.

            Just in N. America, we have Mexico with it’s incredibly strict gun control laws and it’s out of control crime rate. And contrary to what people might think, our Neighbor to the North, Canada, has a violent crime rate over twice what ours is.

            And overseas, the violent crime rate in the ‘gun free’ UK is almost 4 times higher than it is in the US.

            You talk about ‘educating yourself’, yet the ‘study’ you mention about the states with the ‘laxest’ laws being the most violent is a perfect example showing that you are the one being conned (or conning yourself?).

            Go find that study and count the number of states they included. Not 50 is it?

            In fact that ‘study’ (more like an op-ed, since it was never peer-reviewed or even self-published in a journal) dropped any state that didn’t fit the narrative they were selling.

            Ironically, they couldn’t even use the safest state in the Union (according to the FBI), Vermont, because they have literally NO gun laws not required by federal law.

            Literally anyone who can legally own a gun can carry it anywhere, at any time into almost anyplace in Vermont without any legal issues or requirements.

            I don’t know if you are a paid Bloomberg shill or just someone influenced by their propaganda.

            But if you are the latter I urge you to examine the ‘evidence’ the gun control lobby presents with a critical eye and see if it stands up.

          • getoffmylawn

            Objective research shows that more guns equal more violence all the time, every time, every where. Gun nuts deny that by simply saying “nut uh!” All the while cherry picking numbers that support their contention. The argument is so stupid that they may as well say that pouring gasoline on a fire makes it go out.

          • getoffmylawn

            I guess the question is, if you are correct that homicide rate is proportional to population density, why does Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alaska have higher homicide rates than New York and Illinois?

          • spencer60

            I said “…population density, income disparity and drugs.”.

            However look at CA (4.4 murders per 100,000), NY (3.1) and IL (5.3) and compare them to states with ‘loose’ gun laws like UT (2.3) NH (.9) and Idaho (2.0)

            There a great article in WaPo that highlights the fact there is absolutely no correlation between how ‘loose’ a state’s gun laws are (as rated by the Brady gun control group) and it’s violent crime or murder rate.


          • getoffmylawn

            This is an opinion piece, using the knife/gun argument. So, if gun laws have zero correlation, why does the gun lobby to continually assert (falsely) that loose gun laws with lower crime?

            States with top 11 highest homicide rates:

            Louisiana 10.3 – open carry no permit
            Mississippi 8.6 – open carry no permit
            Missouri 6.6 – open carry no permit
            Maryland 6.1 – open carry permit
            Nevada 6.0 – open carry no permit
            Delaware 5.8 – open carry no permit
            Florida 5.8 – no open carry
            Alabama 5.7 – open carry no permit
            Georgia 5.7 – open carry permit
            Tennessee 5.7 – open carry permit
            Alaska 5.6 – open carry no permit

            So, of the top eleven homicide states, NINE are open carry, and 3 are open carry with a permit. Only ONE, Florida, does not allow open carry. So I guess that kind of shoots down the myth that open carry promotes safety and security. In fact, it actually proves the opposite, per usual. It also shoots down your “population density” assertion.

          • spencer60

            And again… homicide rates have no correlation with murder rates.

            And no… that piece in WaPo is an analysis of a meta-study done by the National Academy of Sciences. A study that clearly shows no correlation between gun laws and homicide rates.

            And where you suddenly pop up with this whole ‘open carry’ thing is beyond me. It was never mentioned and I don’t know anyone who’s ever argued that lowers crime.

            Maybe carry in general, but that’s a long-term, global effect that doesn’t necessarily stop at state borders.

          • getoffmylawn

            Let’s sum up your position so far:

            1. Homicide rates have no correlation with murder rates. LOL. Homicide rate IS murder rate.

            2. Pouring gasoline on a fire puts it out.

            3. Privately sold guns are not used in crimes.

            4. Gun ownership is not declining, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

            5. Water flows uphill, the sun rises in the west, and you can fall up into the sky.

            When common sense, factual numbers, and mountains of data are ignored, it’s no wonder that gun nuts live in their own echo chamber of nonsense and malarkey.

            Oh, and I posted the open carry facts because gun nuts argue incessantly that open carry prevents crime. It doesn’t, it never has, never will, and only makes law enforcement’s job harder as was plain to see in Dallas.

          • FlameCCT

            Don’t forget Vermont with basically no gun control and low homicide rate.

          • spencer60

            You say “more guns = more violence”.

            the US Dept of Justice tells us we have more guns (~300 million) and more gun owners (~100 million) than ever before in US history.

            Violent crime is at its lowest point in the last 20-50 years.

            And I’m the one denying the facts?

            Oh, and BTW, pouring liquid gas on a fire will indeed put it out, it’s the vapor that burns.

          • getoffmylawn

            Homicide rate is 300% that of developed countries. If you were right, that rate would be much lower, so you’re wrong. btw, let me know how your gasoline experiment works out. I’ll be standing by.

          • spencer60

            I already debunked your “300%” and your false beliefs on homicide rates up top… And unlike you, I don’t get confused about scientific method.

            Science can never prove ANYTHING… it wither disproves a claim or allows the hypothesis to stand based on the evidence already presented.

            Your claim that “more guns = more violence’ has been disproven by the facts that we do have ‘more guns’ but we actually have less violence… not more.

            It would be nice if I could say that it proves ‘more guns = less violence’, but that’s not what the scientific method does.

            All I can say is that there has been a strong correlation between the the number guns and gun owners in the US and the lowering of violent crime rates over the last 20 years.

            As for the gas thing… try doing some research with an open mind. What you learn might surprise you.

          • getoffmylawn

            You haven’t “debunked” anything. You’ve just yelled “Nuh Uh!”. In fact, using OECD data, the US has a homicide rate between 4.7 to 5.0 per 100,000. The average for other OECD countries is about 1.4. 1.4 into 4.7 is 336%. Try again.

          • spencer60

            And as I said, if 50% of homicides use guns, and you remove that part, that still leaves you with 168%… so what do you blame that on if it’s all these guns that cause murders?

            And please explain Switzerland using your logic…

            Here’s a country with firearms ownership rates even higher than the US (many being fully-automatic assault rifles no less) yet a murder AND violent crime rate far below the US numbers, and those of ‘gun free countries’.

          • getoffmylawn

            Switzerland? You mean the country where all the ammunition is kept in central depots? That Switzerland? Oh, BTW according to the CDC, guns are responsible for 70% of US murders. Since gun homicides are almost non existent in most other OECD countries, I would say that the gun homicide rate is far more than 300%. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

          • FlameCCT

            Yes, Switzerland where the government ammunition is kept in central depots for the government issued firearms held in civilian hands should the need arise. Swiss citizens can also purchase firearms and ammunition for personal usage.

            I do appreciate you demonstrating your ignorance publicly.

          • getoffmylawn

            Facts are inconvenient to gun lobby propaganda.

          • Numerobis21

            USA loose gun laws, more mass shootings than days in a year.
            France: strict gun laws, one mass shooting every 2 years ish

          • spencer60

            According to the FBI, the number of mass attacks of any kind have stayed flat since the mid-90s.

            This spike seems mainly due to the collapse of the community healthcare model put in place in the 1970s and the lack of any long term care for the mentally ill.

          • Henry Ridgeway

            Science never proves anything. Well, that pretty much sums it up.

          • FlameCCT

            Your ignorance is truly astonishing although hardly surprising from a Progressive serf.

            Objective research shows the high gun control equals high gun violence. I would also note that while all countries have seen dropping homicide rates; the UK and Australia saw an increase in homicide by other weapons as well as an increase in violent crime when they banned firearms.

          • valkyrie17

            Cite a legitimate source for your (erroneous) claim that Canada has TWICE the violent crime that the USA has.

          • spencer60

            Try Nationmaster… they have a good comparison tool. A few second brought this up…

            Total crimes per 1000
            CAN – 80.25 Ranked 10th. 94% more than United States
            USA – 41.29 Ranked 22nd.

            The simple truth is that taking away firearms doesn;t make a country ‘safer. Both the UK and Australia saw large spikes in crime when they confiscated law abiding people’s firearms.

            Here in the US, as we’ve seen more people become firearms owners, crime has dropped significantly.

          • getoffmylawn

            First, I’ve been there and know that’s false. Second, you know, and everyone who is paying attention knows that gun nuts gang up on anyone who disagrees with their radical notions of gun ownership. Do you actually deny that?

          • spencer60

            As the guy being pig-piled on, I’d have to say ‘yes’.

        • Raymond_Q_Smuckles

          “You can quote all the NRA statistics you want…”

          Actually the statistics are from the Texas Department of Public Safety, not the NRA…

  • KublaConn

    So, these people are adamant about their right to carry a firearm but they don’t respect the right of property owners to control what happens on their property? Pretty much exposes the fact that this isn’t really about the Constitution and rights at all, doesn’t it?

    • spencer60

      It doesn’t sound like anyone was not respecting the owner’s right to make his place a gun free zone.

      It sounds like the owner wasn’t respecting his customers right to write public reviews based on that decision.

      • toydrum

        So you missed the part of the article in which it clearly states that the reviews included outright lies and slander? And the part where they published private information about the owner (presumbably things like his address and phone number)?

        Those are not restaurant “reviews”, those are personal attacks.

        • spencer60

          A bad review is not ‘slander’ and as far as I can see, the only one doxing folks was the owner, who admitted Googling a review to find the user’s home address.

    • FlameCCT

      You mean like the baker in OR, the photographer in NM, or the florist in WA not being afforded the right of property owners to control what happens on their property or how they use their professional talents like this restaurant owner?

      • KublaConn

        So, you’re equating someone carrying a deadly weapon on their person with being gay? Yeah, that’s some grade-A logic you’re working with there.

        • FlameCCT

          Typical Progressive response and total fail. I’m comparing Rights of all parties involved in the situations. Unlike you who project your peccadilloes onto others. This restaurant owner could have easily replied with the serving of alcohol as the basis for no firearms instead he told the person to FO. Then he whines about being hammered and comes up with his excuse.

          • KublaConn

            Hey, you’re the one that made the comparison, not me. Let me give your little game here a try….typical conservative authoritarian response, when asked a question to clarify their point, they ignore the question completely and make no effort to back up their stance, but rather change the talking point entirely. How’s that?

          • FlameCCT

            I pointed to comparable situations concerning rights after your comment about “…they don’t respect the right of property owners to control what happens on their property…” and “…Pretty much exposes the fact that this isn’t really about the Constitution and rights at all…”

            But please continue to deflect and run away like a typical Progressive.

          • KublaConn

            Well, I asked you a question and you still haven’t answered it, so the ball’s pretty much still in your court, no? Your response to the question was to bring up an entirely different aspect of the situation that has nothing to do with the original point that you raised, so exactly who’s deflecting here?

            Here, let me help you out a little bit. First scenario: A person who happens to be homosexual walks into a restaurant and orders some food and is refused service and told they will not be served now or at any time in the future due to their sexual preference. Second scenario: A person who has a deadly weapon on their person is given legal notice that they are not allowed to enter the premises with the weapon but they can freely avail themselves of the services offered if they simply put the weapon in their glove box before entering the establishment.

            So, one patron is being discriminated against based solely upon a certain personal aspect of themselves and the other patron is simply being told, “You can’t bring that in here”. You are putting forth the notion that these two scenarios are exactly the same and demonstrate a comparable exertion of property rights by the owner of the establisment and represent equal limitations placed upon the patron of the establishment and that is a false equivalency. No one is refusing service to the gun owner, they are merely being told to put their gun in the glove box before coming inside, or do you believe that “No shirt, No shoes, No service” signs are egregious affronts to basic civil rights, as well?

          • FlameCCT

            Are you really that ignorant? I answered it yet apparently your bias blinds you.
            I’m comparing Rights of all parties involved in the situations. But please continue to publicly demonstrate your ignorance.

            BTW: “No shirt, No shoes, No service signs” were initially used to deny basic civil rights to minorities and the poor by Progressive Democrats just like their Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, segregating the federal government and denying MLK his 2A Rights to name a few.

          • KublaConn

            What you are doing is FALSELY comparing the rights of all parties involved. The only similarity is that someone was refused service and there is no actual equivalency here from which to build a reasonable comparison. Neither in why the property owner is refusing service nor in the level of damage to the citizen, but I have already clearly pointed this out and you are being willfully obtuse. Not much meat left on this bone, time to push away from the table.

          • FlameCCT

            Wrong again Con. I find it amusing how you continually whine about the comparison being false with no actual facts or data to support your contention. Although I’m not surprised because you have nothing but Progressive propaganda to support your contention.

          • Henry Ridgeway

            When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

          • FlameCCT

            I’m not the one digging a hole. Whether one is talking about 1A, 2A, et.al. Constitutional Rights, there is no supremacy of one over the others nor can government restrict any of them based on fear, projection, whining, feelz, etc.

  • WestTexan70

    If you’re too scared to get a pizza without packing your penile replacement, you need to call out for delivery.

    • KublaConn

      Sounds like good advise, at first, but when you think more about it, maybe not so much. If they’re so scared when out in public that they feel the need to be constantly armed, how are they going to react to someone knocking on their door, especially with the whole “protecting my castle” thing added in? Then, add in the fact that the person at their door is very likely to be a minority or someone of different ethnic origin than themselves, sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. No, I think we need them to remain out in public, where there are plenty of witnesses, as much as possible.

      • WestTexan70

        Good points. Maybe we should call for delivery … 🙂

        • spencer60

          Nah, the delivery guys in HOU aren’t allowed to carry, so they get jacked all the time.

    • spencer60

      Why do gun control supporters have this fascination with penis size?

      It’s impossible to have a reasonable conversation about guns without some of them immediately asking questions about people’s sexual organs.

      And since the fastest growing group of new gun owners is women, will they start focusing on breast sizes now too?

      • getoffmylawn

        You gun nuts have been doing that for years. Open Carry Texas nuts were the ones who called Mom’s Demand members “thugs with jugs” until that backfired. They also published private contact information so they would be inundated by threats and harassment until THAT backfired, too. Then they tried giving away school supplies for a while until they realized that the damage had been done. You are aware that gun ownership is actally declining, yes? Gun sales are up because a shrinking group is amassing more and more guns.

        • spencer60

          LOL, I’d love to see where OCT asked about Shannon Watt’s breast size… I’m guessing that like most of what you say, that’s simply made-up as well.

          The very fact that you seem to believe the ridiculous argument that ‘gun ownership is declining’ despite every piece of factual data out there just shows that you are either completely out of touch with reality, or employed by the gun control industry.

          Trust me, if I was rich enough to be buying all the guns that I am told I am as part of that ‘shrinking group”, I wouldn’t be working… I’d be out shooting them!

          • getoffmylawn

            Half of guns in America owned by THREE percent of the population. https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/harvard-gun-ownership-study-self-defense/

          • spencer60

            Really? The Trace?

            A web site solely owned and funded by Micheal Bloomberg?

            The radical, anti-rights, gun control multi-billionaire that wanted to ban Big Gulps in NYC?

            The man who has spent over a billion dollars so far setting up gun control groups like “Everytown…” and “Mom’s Demand…”, ‘news’ organizations like “The Trace”, and his own “Bloomberg School of Public Health” at Johns Hopkins to create ‘science on demand’ for his groups?

            That ‘study’ was paid for by Bloomberg and released directly to his own gun control ‘news’ site.

            The calculations were all based on the same ridiculous assumption that you brought up earlier… that there are fewer gun owners buying more guns.

            This ‘paper’ would be laughed out of any peer-reviewed journals and in fact wasn’t even submitted for publication. They simply gave the ‘results’ to the Trace, and the equally anti-gun UK paper The Guardian.

            Again, I still don’t know if you are being duped, or a Bloomberg paid troll, but either way this is only evidence that you can use money to buy ‘truth’ these days.

          • getoffmylawn

            Actually that’s false. It was run by researchers at Ha card and released through the Trace and The Guardian. I know, just like Trump, numbers don’t matter unless you agree with them.

          • spencer60

            It was run by researchers ‘out of’ Harvard (and Northeastern). That’s a whole different kettle of fish than Harvard putting their name on it. These ‘researchers’ could have been fired from Harvard for all we know.

            Since the study wasn’t published yet, there hasn’t been any peer review. In fact the methodology hasn’t even been discussed or revealed except in the broadest possible terms.

            They simply arranged to tell the ‘results’ to the two media organizations literally owned by people whose primary agenda is pushing gun control.

            And since they won’t be ‘publishing’ until 2017, that’s the soonest that we’ll find out how they actually ran their ‘study’ and got their data.

            Or probably not.

            This type of research is pure propaganda, ‘science on demand’ at best, and outright fakery at the worst.

            Real scientist don’t go running to the press with ‘results’ until their study has been reviewed and vetted. Until that happens there are no ‘results’

            Any time you see a ‘scientist’ rush to the media to trumpet a result you can be sure they are doing that for PR value, not because they think this is valuable research.

            Almost 100% of the time this research will never be submitted for review and publication, simply because the researcher knows it won’t stand up.

            Occasionally it will be self-published on a site like PLOS-ONE, when there is no peer review mechanism, but even that is usually too public a venue for this information.

            I can guarantee that you will never see this particular study published anywhere, and the only ones who will reference it will be the people who paid for it… the gun control lobby.

          • getoffmylawn

            Uh, huh. Let me know what you think about the other surveys I’ve posted THAT SHOW THE SAME THING. Queen of Denial keeps popping into my head.

          • spencer60

            And PEW’s latest survey shows that the number of households with guns is up 7%, to 44%.

            These surveys show the willingness of people to talk about having a firearm in their home far more than how many actually do.

            Also, these arguments tend to forget that we have a lot more households in total compared to the baselines being used (typically 1970 or so). So even a smaller number percentage-wise can add up to a much larger total.

            Self-reported polls are notoriously unreliable. In fact any self-reporting study is generally tainted with various types of bias.

            The story that fewer people are simply buying more guns simply doesn’t explain the massive increases we’ve seen in the number of ranges being built, training companies being started, and accessories like cleaning kits being sold.

            These types of purchases are all tied to a person, and the number of guns that person owns are irrelevant.

            Or simply read online why the US Dept. of Justice believes that there are 20 million more gun owners than there were a decade ago.

            Every time I go to the indoor range (one of several new ones built in the last 5-6 years around here), I see the proof with my own eyes. I’m almost always one of the oldest and whitest people there, and at least 1/3rd of the folks shooting are women.

            When I go to a gun show it’s not just ‘old white guys’, but groups of millennials looking stuff over. Or take a look at the gun channels on YouTube or the pages on Facebook… not much white hair going on there.

            If your polls make you happy, great. But don’t confuse them with objective reality.

          • getoffmylawn
          • FlameCCT

            I would also note that in many States, the gun control laws are so strict that many people will not respond to polls about their legally owned firearms.

          • FlameCCT

            Not just PR but to secure more funding. Similar to the AGW scam.

          • getoffmylawn

            There is NO objective research that claims gun ownership is increasing. Every major survey done shows it going down. Were it not for the silly annual “Obama is coming for your guns” sales, gun purchases likely would not have skyrocketed, and, indeed since he’s coming to the end of his term and there have been no “gun grabs”, sales are falling pretty significantly. I’ll stand by this assertion as accurate.

          • spencer60

            Yet even the Obama administration DoJ says that firearms ownership increased from 80 million to 100 million during the last 8 years.

            Literally ever single source, including the same poll (Pew, Gallup, honestly I forget) that a few years back showed a lower number of household with guns has shown that firearms ownership has been steadily increasing over the last decade or so.

            Non-survey sources like sales data, and first time buyer studies show a consistent upward trend in ownership by a younger, far more diverse group, with women featuring prominently for the first time.

            You can stand by your ‘assertion’ all you want, but all the data is against it.

          • getoffmylawn
          • getoffmylawn
          • getoffmylawn

            spencer, do you also believe that cutting taxes increases revenue? Oh, BTW, how did your gasoline on the fire experiment go?

          • FlameCCT

            So you use Wonkblog as a reliable source and they rely on polls not actual data. LMAO

          • getoffmylawn

            Actually ALL the data is against your assertion.

          • FlameCCT

            And more recently LGBT sales and training has gone up especially after the Orlando shooting.

      • WestTexan70

        Because gun folks are so scared that theirs ain’t big enough. I’ve lived among them for more than 60 years — it’s just fact.

  • Wilson James

    You really have to wonder if the kind of people that would be so dishonest as to lie on a review should have access to a firearm.

    • spencer60

      How are they ‘lying’.

      If the reason they gave the place a single star is because of the way the owners discriminate against them, that’s hardly a ‘lie’.

      • toydrum

        Did you even read the article itself before jumping to the comment section to scream about your toys? Here is a direct quote for you:

        The negative reviews rose to truly epic, and utterly false, heights.
        Reviewers claimed that servers had track marks on their arms. The
        clientele was reported to consist largely of visibly affiliated gang
        members. Someone claimed that Calleo dripped snot onto a pizza, and his
        private information was posted online. Someone even made the claim that
        it was the likes of Pi Pizza who “allowed” the mass shooting that
        occurred about ten miles across Houston last week to occur.

        Another reviewer claimed that his car had been broken into and his
        gun stolen while he was in the restaurant. “I Googled the guy, and I
        don’t think he even lives in Texas,” Ellis says. “They just went really
        over the top.”

        • spencer60

          Says the owner and the sympathetic author….

          How do you know these claims aren’t partly or completely true?

          Have you investigated each and every one of them to verify that what the reviewer said was false, or are you simply jumping to that conclusion because you disagree with my viewpoint?

        • FlameCCT

          Did you even read the article. The negative reviews rose after the owner told the original reviewer to FO. It wasn’t until later that the owner claimed it was because he sold alcohol. IOW people responded to an owner being a jerk.

          BTW: Notice how the same thing occurred to a baker in OR, a florist in WA, a photographer in NM, etc.

  • Bear Naff

    “Ellis, the brother of a long-time cop, says he has no issue with guns per se, but he doesn’t think they belong in places where liquor is sold, such as Pi Pizza. “If I have to post a sign now to say that, well, that’s why the sign is up,” he says, then noting that his other businesses Lee’s Petite Sweets and Lee’s Chicken and Donuts don’t have signs up because they don’t offer liquor.”

    So, in other words, if Ellis had said “You’re welcome to shop or not shop as you wish. However, we hope that this experience won’t keep you from visiting our other restaurants. They permit concealed- and open-carry of firearms. My restaurants follow my views, which are that firearms and alcohol are not a safe mixture. Have a nice day.” the worst that would have happened would be that the original 1-star reviewer would have looked like an asshole if he took screenshots to anyone else.

    I hope that someone out there is archiving this story to use in a class on public relations and management, because it is certainly a teaching moment!

    • KublaConn

      Considering that the vast majority of the public don’t feel the need to carry a firearm upon their person at all times, it would seem that it is incumbent upon those with a gun fetish to adjust their expectations and actions to that fact, rather than the onus being upon everyone else to go out of their way to accomodate those harboring irrational fears when mixing with the general public.

      • Bear Naff

        Your reply has nothing to do with what I said, whatsoever. Take whatever supposed virtue you’re trying to demonstrate to your audience elsewhere, please.

        • KublaConn

          It has everything to do with what you are saying, because you are making the suggestion that the business owner should be more accomodating to those who wish to carry guns. The majority of the populace do not wish to be surrounded by guns, therefore, it is reasonable to expect businesses to ban guns from their establishment. The business owner owes the gun fetishist no explanation at all other than he doesn’t wish to have guns in his establishement, the presence of alcohol or not. It’s my right to go barefoot, but it’s not my right to expect every business out there to allow me to enter their establishment without shoes on my feet and they don’t have to justify it to me lest they be harrassed and harangued by a rabid mob of extremists.

          • Bear Naff

            So, in other words, you think that the anonymous gun-owner was right to call down the mob on Lee Ellis. If politeness is a responsibility for one, it’s a responsibility for all. If no quarter or consideration need by granted by one, it need not be granted by any.

            Mr. Ellis could have picked a strategy that avoided all of this. Like you, he thought he didn’t have to. The facts show that he is wrong. The lesson here is that a lack of civility, to anyone, can have unforseen costs. You never know what resources someone can bring to bear to avenge an insult.

            Amusingly, the appropriate quote here is from someone who wrote science fiction about a society with open carry, Robert Heinlein. “An armed society is a polite society.” The internet acts as a force multiplier for social pressure. You don’t have to be able to marshal a “majority of the populace” to your side to exert strong pressure on an individual. If you have something to lose, like the reputation of a business you have worked hard to build, it’s good to remember that.

          • spencer60

            Well said.

          • valkyrie17

            Why should he have responded politely to a rude review from a NON-client, that had nothing to do with food? Maybe the gun owner should have had the maturity to think that the OWNER has a right to ban weapons from the place where he sells food.

          • Bear Naff

            Because he could have easily made this _go away_. Ellis isn’t banning firearms from his other restaurants, and he isn’t making money picking a fight with people who have more free time than he does.

  • Scott Johnson

    Most of the hate came when whoever runs the Facebook site told someone to F off. Not very professional and you gotta expect what you get. Cooks also put their dicks in the pizza #truth

  • spencer60

    In TX there is a legal way to post a property ‘no guns’ and so long as those provisions were met, there’s no problem at all. If he wants his private property to be a ‘gun free zone’ that’s his right.

    However, calling mentioning the resteraunts gun-free zone status in a review and reducing a review of it because of that is also perfectly reasonable.

    I personally do not support establishments that are ‘gun free zones’, and knowing this fact ahead of time would be helpful in a review.

  • Debbie Martin

    If I want no smoking in my restaurant I have that right. If I don’t want crazies with guns in my business I certainly have the right to keep myself and my customers safe. This gun mania has gone way too far.

  • Debbie Martin

    I hope all this publicity makes Pi a huge success. If I were in Houston I’d go in and order a large anything. But I’m not goin to visit any city or state where they have open carry. Terrifying.

    • FlameCCT

      You have severely limited your places to visit to DC, NY, CA, IL, SC, & FL; the only States with no open carry although all 50 States have a form of Concealed Carry.

  • carolmarlene

    Thank God I am in the North East. No guns in my restaurants or particularly bars and taverns.

    • FlameCCT

      Hopefully you’re in NY as the only NE State that bans open carry although even NY has Concealed Carry so you aren’t even sure if one is carrying or not.

  • Capital_7

    Gun assholes ruin everything, why not pizza?

    I’ll make a point of hitting these guys next time I’m in town. God love the pizza man!

  • benkozicki

    Y’all Texans are effin nuts.

  • José

    You can almost hear the conversation that might have transpired.
    Editor: “Not enough online traffic on the Daily Post. Lomax, do something.”
    JNL: “Hmm…I’ve got an idea. Guns ‘n Pizzas!”
    Bubbas of Texas: “Y’all come over here right now! Hillary’s gonna steal our guns again!”

  • Higgs Boson

    Viva Presidente Trump❗